This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ayurveda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should this article be covered by Arbcom sanctions on Pseudoscience, and should it also be categorised as such? I think it should be covered and is pseudoscience fwiw. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti: Roxy is well aware of the definition of vandalism, and your comment seems to be quite tangential to the original point. You should stop making up things to discredit editors that you disagree with. bobrayner ( talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
For good measure: Wanjek, Christopher (2003). Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Distance Healing to Vitamin O. John Wiley & Sons. p. 168. ISBN 9780471463153. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ayurveda+pseudoscience+&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl Ayurveda is known to be a pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
New discussion started for this edit and this change. See Talk:Ayurveda#Violation of ASSERT. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I added another source and it was deleted. No matter what source is used it will likely be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Izz is a businessman who sold his online recruiting firm, Jobs in Dubai, for $9 million in 2011 according to a published announcement.
He's promoted himself as an inventor, having patented a type of condom wrapper, and actively promoting his designs for an emergency oxygen mask and a space tower. In a recent RfC, multiple editors argued against presenting these inventions, and they've been substantially de-emphasized. However, these comments ( [8] [9]) bring up points that might be best dealt here, as the inventions appear simplistic to the point that it's likely no science or engineering journalist would ever take them serious enough to even mention them. How should we treat this given we're unlikely to ever have sources beyond his own p.r.? Have similar inventors been discussed here? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-relevant discussions from archives:
Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the "inventions" discussed to support their notability. Lack of characterization as "inventor" or discussion of "inventions" in reliable sources. The inclusion of these inventions and the characterization as inventor is not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
A series of edits needs to be examined. The all-caps REDUCED is a dead giveaway of a POV editor. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Universal rotation curve ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The AfD crashed and burned and I'm trying to deal with the damage. So far, we have had no help from editors except to say that because there are inline citations to Salucci's papers, we therefore have a reliable article. (It's total WP:ADVERT, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone). Help would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Over at WikiProject Chemistry, we've been trying to resolve some of the merge proposals for articles in our scope. One of these is a proposed merger of Fluoride toxicity into Fluoride. There's not a strong consensus either way at the moment, but it seems agreed that Fluoride Toxicity is (or was) overly reliant on non- WP:MEDRS compliant sources. As it stands now, I think the main question is whether, once non- WP:MEDRS-sourced statements are removed, there will be enough left over to justify its own article. Would anyone mind taking a moment to go through and assess to what degree it will be possible to clean up the article without gutting it? 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 13:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Having difficulty finding any reliable sources for this guy. Goblin Face ( talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
How do we address cases where a fringe theory has become accepted science/medicine?
While EMDR is now well supported by medical research, but it was highly controversial from its inception in the late 1980s, through the 1990s and beyond, because of its inclusion of eye movements that were not supported by research at the time. Basically, the criticisms were that EMDR was just a combination of techniques that were already known to work, with an eye movement component added to make it appear original.
Recently, research has been published demonstrating the eye movement component has some effect. This has resulted in editors rewriting the article, especially the controversies section, to repeatedly highlight the new research and remove the skeptical viewpoint from the article (the topic is covered by reliable skeptical sources including Quackwatch, Skepdic, and Skeptic). While this is ultimately a NPOV/MEDRS problem, it would be helpful to know how similar problems have been addressed in other Wikipedia articles or on this noticeboard. We could also use help going over the medical research to see what criticism's have and have not been addressed by subsequent research. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
An official representative for Sheldrake (maybe himself?) has opened a thread with some concerns, and of course they should be taken seriously and treated civilly. We need more eyes.
I also wonder if Iantresman is violating his topic ban in that thread? -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote this essay to fill a little niche in the ecosystem of essays. Maybe the niche is already covered by an existing essay, or maybe it would be better as part of an existing essay, or maybe what it says is best left unsaid. In any case feedback/contributions are welcome. vzaak 20:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is a new proposal without the misplaced ref. Is there any reason to exclude this now based on Wikipedia policy? Talk:Ayurveda#Reliable sources added is the old discussion. A new discussion is at Talk:Ayurveda#Inclusion of pseudoscience within article body. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
More sources for expanding the article can be found at Talk:Ayurveda#Characterization of ayurveda as pseudoscience in sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
New Editor deleting mass chunks of the article and accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased. Goblin Face ( talk) 04:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
New user adding spiritualist books to the lead and claiming "neuroscientists generally assume" or are making assumptions that the NDE is hallucination. Typical rant on the talk-page about 'bias' or skeptical sources in the article or about "materialism". The talk-page also reeks of sock-puppets. Any extra eyes on this appreciated. Goblin Face ( talk) 01:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources being used to insert content. Some eyes would help. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a running debate over multiple threads over the past month regarding how to deal with the term " jihadist" as a descriptor for militant group ISIL/ISIS. This descriptor is widely used in Western sources without qualification, however it is used by Al-Jazeera with "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" qualifiers. A collective of 126 Islamic scholars that published an open letter described in the ISIL#Criticism section saying that the group's actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality".
The currently active discussion can be found here. The choices, as I understand it, come down to how much weight should be given to this issue; whether is should be prominent in the lead, in the lead but in an {{ efn}}, or just left as is in the #Criticism section. I recently introduced the idea that the Fringe guidelines may apply and we are looking for guidance as to how much weight this concept should be given.~ Technophant ( talk) 19:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We have another SPA User:TineIta who is engaging in disruptive editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and so forth - in clear violation of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Talk:Homeopathy. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could swing by and verify whether a dope-slap is needed. TIA SteveBaker ( talk) 16:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is something sourced to basically fringe sources (from the archaeological perspective), mainly followers of Gimbutas with no archaeological qualifications. It's certainly a mess of original research with most of the sources and linked articles not mentioning a "Danube Civilization". Dougweller ( talk) 16:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't turn this into me versus you Dougweller :) Please don't try to make me the bad guy here. you mention problems with copyvio? not anymore. I work hard not to copyvio and the last couple of months there have been none to my knowledge, and if there been some it is not intentionally. And please stop making it sound like the Institute of Archaeomythology are some kind of sect followers of Marija Gimbutas. She is a very respected scholar. And you disrespecting the members. I feel that you harassing me a little bit and I don't like it, I makes me fell very unpleasant. I have always been nice to you and other Wikipedians. As I told you before i am disabled and it is very hard for me just to be a part of Wikipedia without any help. So please when you write that i am poor in English, and that i dont' posses the knowledge about a subject, or that the article about the Danube civilization is a mess, it makes me very sad. I don't want to use more time in this discussion, it's to hard. I think it is very sad that there are no place for me in here without you correcting many of the edits i do.
If there are consesnsus then just merge the Danube civilization into Old Europe, i think there is a lot of good information. It is not because i don't want to discuss it anymore, but i can't, to hard. Have a nice day my friend :) Lactasamir ( talk) 23:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This article has plainly had a lot of care taken with it, but some aspects make me uneasy from a WP:FRINGE perspective. For example:
Would appreciate other views on whether there is anything here that should concern this noticeboard. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Boyd Bushman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does this "Lockheed engineer reveals aliens exist" hoax deserve its own article, or just an entry at List of hoaxes? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This problematic article needs some attention. A Halloween traffic spike has brought in a majority of frivolous Keep votes at the the AfD, so the article is likely staying around -- but is currently a playground for SPA's inserting arguments and original research, frivolously requesting citations for obvious information, and even modifying newspaper quotes. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This new article was nominated for deletion, but the template removed. I'm not sure if this is notable enough, or if it's good. Take a look. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Friends of Science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yikes. This astroturfing organization has an article which doesn't even seem to indicate that the organization itself is an advocacy group for promoting global warming denial. Probably a victim of the climate change wars of 5 years ago. Should this article exist? Can someone clean it up? I notice it claims certain members who are not currently listed on the website.
Very confusing. Very in need of help.
jps ( talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
So, what do people think of this framing [14]? I am trying to establish the context of this kind of organization. jps ( talk) 15:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Tinley Park Lights ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can anyone find any WP:FRIND sources that would justify this article?
jps ( talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National UFO Reporting Center
Seems like almost like a WP:VANITY article to me.
jps ( talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wales UFO sightings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should this article exist?
jps ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Article is a serious mess and a problem with fringe claims. I have to admit the article is rather an embarrassment. No reliable sources on this article, only occult or credulous 'esoteric' books being cited. The article reads like 'factual' or an advert with these planes with fairies or spiritual beings on actually existing. I am not sure what to do here, I would suggest nuking a lot of the article and weeding out some of the dubious claims, not sure what would be left though? I doubt there are any mainstream scientific sources that have evaluated these fringe about different occult planes. The article seems to mostly use theosophy sources, not really reliable. There may be a struggle to find good sources. Any suggestions here? Goblin Face ( talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sergio Arcacha Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject of the first article was sought by Jim Garrison during his investigation of the assassination of JFK and the Trial of Clay Shaw. This was reported in the papers of the time and, as with almost everything else associated with assassination, made its way into the HSCA report. And if it's in the HSCA report, it makes it way into conspiracy books. As far as I can tell, the only way to make an article out of this is using either primary sources or fringe sources. Redirect to List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw? Thoughts? (Articles based on all of this are: Friends of Democratic Cuba, Crusade to Free Cuba Committee, and Cuban Revolutionary Council.) Thanks! - Location ( talk) 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there such a thing? I so need one to award to a first class troll right now. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 15:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
See [ [17]]. I thought this might be about Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad which was just edited by someone removing an unsourced statement (which sadly I can't source) but it seems to relate more directly to the Sung Document which is also mentioned at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, 1170s and 1178. Also mentioned in the article is Abu Bakr II. These could all benefit from more watchers. Dougweller ( talk) 15:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone with a physics background needs to look at this. There are two sections especially including "Information-only teleportation" which seems to contain some fringe material. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Winter Solstice Alignment Cave in Manchester, Kentucky. I was going to bring another related article, Red Bird River Shelter Petroglyphs to the attention of this board also. Both have claims of Old World inscriptions. Dougweller ( talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with this article, every month. A group of IPs keep white-washing the article and deleting any reliable sources like James Alcock etc. There seems to be a pattern here. Most recently 50.247.107.41 ( talk · contribs) claims to be Krippner himself, but another account has claimed this already, as has another IP. I would assume all these IPs are Krippner or associated with him, same pattern of removing the same sources. I have asked for him to seek consensus or at least discuss on the talk-page first but he has not done this.
The same sort of thing happened on the Sam Parnia article and it had to be locked. I don't have time to keep looking over this article as I am busy with other stuff right now but this pattern of editing seems to be constant and monthly. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Fringe claims sourced to psychic journals being added to this article by 74.195.244.87 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has consistently re-added these fringe sources a number of times after being asked to seek consensus first (see talk-page). Goblin Face ( talk) 03:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Dorothy Kilgallen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The "On This Day" hook for today's anniversary of Dorothy Kilgallen's death looks really dicey to me. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The "lunatic charlatans" of whom Jimbo spoke are still trying to rewrite the real world through Wikipedia. The most persistent WP:SPA has filed a mediation request. Given that the proponents openly admit in their own online petition that reflecting their POV would require the implementation and enforcement of new policies, and Jimbo's robust response, it would help if a couple of the regulars here could help the mediation volunteer to understand why this is not an issue that can be mediated, but a straightforward collision between The Truth™ and WP:NPOV. Guy ( Help!) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up, on Talk:Ebola virus disease, there have been recent attempts to have various "hypotheses" and "traditional approaches" to ebola treatment added to the article, based on minimal/unreliable sourcing. It would be helpful if people could spend some time looking over articles and talk pages related to ebola, ebola treatment and ebola outbreaks to ensure that fringe theories are not being smuggled in to them. — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering what's really going on here with all these solo edits. There is no collaborative editing occurring here:
Diff of thirteen+ edits, ending with an "under construction" template, but no activity. I want to AGF, but this needs more eyes. Some of the edit summaries, especially the first one (23:22, November 7, 2014 ), are dubious, if not worse. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Generation Rescue ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A primary sourced draft whitewash has been posted to Talk:Generation Rescue. I think this article needs some eyes. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The AfD for this fringe and tabloid churnalism-sourced bio is being contested at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Boyd_Bushman. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this notable? The sources are terrible. Goblin Face ( talk) 10:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Lots of sciency-sounding claims, but very little, if anything, in the way of independent sources found for this org.
Part of a walled garden of CFZ articles linked above. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This bio probably needs some balancing. I get the impression that besides the one book he came to the public eye as a conspiracy theory pusher, but the odd structure of the article shows signs of trying to minimize this. Mangoe ( talk) 13:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Some recent editing activity at this article has raised some questions about sourcing and weight. The views of fringe-savvy editors will no doubt be useful in informing the ongoing debate. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
(Add) to keep things neat, It would be nice if any follow-up discussion took place at Talk:Integrative medicine rather than bifurcating the discussion by starting here too. 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't believe it hasn't been nominated for deletion before now. I've AfD'ed it here. BlueSalix ( talk) 19:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
See recent POV edits and huge rant on the talk-page. Goblin Face ( talk) 09:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I have found a source on the real site [18] which, compared with the article, makes clear just what a mess this is. I'm not utterly convinced that the rock now enshrined actually came from the NRHP site. If someone could find a reliable source which connects the one to the other it would help a great deal. Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Some new stuff has been added, and it looks like OR and fringe OR to me, but I am not sure, I could use a second opinion. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
An ANI regarding the deletion of editor comments in Talk by fringe theories editors is active here. BlueSalix ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The 1001: A Nature Trust ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The founder of the World Wildlife Fund got a 1000 rich people together to contribute to the WWF's financial endowment. Some believe that this group of people are a cabal that does nefarious things with all their money and power (e.g. [19]). I am posting to solicit additional opinions on the talk page as to whether a secret membership list reported by one source is appropriate for inclusion. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
why else would we be naming such particular individuals? If the list were to be included, there would have to be a fundamental rewording to avoid any such implication.: The reason, why we should choose those particular individuals, is easy to explain. Huismann put it like this (p. 170): "Some of the names I was seeing for the first time, but most of them sounded familiar, because they were prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite.". Maybe I sould have mentioned it in my edit, but I did not, assuming it would be obvious: all cited members are very prominent or influential persons . We can add less known members as well of course if wished. For example we could add more personalities from the German business elite, such as the bankers, but I don't know whether readers in the en:WP are the same interested in persons like Robert Pferdmenges and Hermann Josef Abs ( cf. Süddeutsche Zeitung) as German readers might be. But of course we can reword the text connected with the lists to avoid undesirable suggestive effects.
The Guardian piece you cite quotes Huismann [...quote...] which actually does amount to a conspiracy theory, and one that we arguably shouldn't be promoting without evidence that it is taken seriously by other commentators [...]: User:Location stressed this quote in the Guardian's article (which was my own reference), too, to explain his doubts for the membership lists. But: 1. This also can be treated as Huismann's legitimate working assumption, since his book's chapter (2014, p. 170-174) according to the membership lists does not includes this claim. And 2: Anyway the question, whether the membership lists are authentic or not has to be considered independently from what anyone may conclude in a second step. If we try to avoid any information that could promote neuronal WWF-critical associations of readers, this no longer would represent quality assurance. It would mean self-censorship. Exactly this is, what the German media criticized when Amazon and others removed Huismann's book some years ago, because of the pressure made by WWF. This should be history now. In Germany it is at least. Amazon now even prints the English version ("Printed in Germany by Amazon Distribution GmbH Leipzig", I read in the English 2014 edition). Greetings, -- Anglo-Araneophilus ( talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it the complete list, or isn't it?The 1001 club includes 1001 members (the number is fix - in case a member dies, the next aspirant succeeds). The list I added in my edit sums up those selected names, Huismann listed in Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f. On page 172 Huismann provides the facsimile of an extract of the membership list. There you can find further names of members. Media reports of Huismann researches ( such as by SZ) mention further members. All names I listed in my edit come from Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f.
"cannot simultaneously make statements about the membership including 'businessmen with suspect connections' etc and list members without seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy": As already mentioned, I did not support the declaration 'businessmen with suspect connections'. As far as I understood User:Location regards this as hint at existing allegations, but better ask himself, why he supports this. This is not my subject here. I just want to add an extract of the membership list as given by Huismann. This is what important media outlets report and I don't see why WP should block this information. But if you don't want an extract of members mentioned in the same article with the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' why should we delete the extract of members then (a factual claim)? Wouldn't it be better to delete the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' (an inferential claim)?
it is only Huismann (of the sources you have cited) that thinks naming this long list of individuals is significant.: I don't consider 34 out of 1001 members as a "long list", but of course this is a Wiki and when the authors come to the result we should limit the extract to - let's say - 5 or 8 names, we can do this as well. Why not. I chose these 34, because all names in this list of Huismann's ectract represent very well known and important persons. I did not see a reason to reduce it. But of course we can do that, if the WP authors see here a necessity for it.
seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy - which is policy, and accordingly has to be followed, whether you consider it 'self-censorship' or not: No, WP:BLP policy is not made for legitimation of self-censorship but helps to secure quality standards of information. Up to now no-one has cited a single source that claims, that Dowling's membership lists cited in Huismann are products of a conspiracy theory. It would be a constructed claim to state this. I don't see any infringement of WP:BLP by listing about thirty worldwide very prominet "1001" members of the 1970s and 1980s out of one thousand. You know why I mentioned "self-censorship"? Even Politicians such as de:Burkhardt Müller-Sönksen (media-policy spokesperson of the FDP) called the reaction of the book wholesale to the pressure of WWF "self-censorship". The de:Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union (Union of German Journalists) even accused the WWF for "censorship". Greetings --, Anglo-Araneophilus ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the material from The Guardian, do you have a specific proposal?You ask me that and then escaping to ad nauseam lamentation. Read your untenable claims and compare with the sources. No more is needed. Greetings, -- Anglo-Araneophilus ( talk) 20:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Some of you may recall that in August I brought up Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, a non-existent plot fabricated by Abraham Bolden after he was arrested on bribery charges. Per WP:FRINGE, I removed material related to this in List of events at Soldier Field ( diff), however, the material was recently restored, fringe sources and all, with a minor wording change ( diff). Another set of eyes would be helpful. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
A Polish secret Nazi antigravity weapon conspiracy theorist known only for being mentioned in one of Nick Cook's books. I can find no secondary RS for Igor Witkowski that are independent of the conspiracy claims, and there have been past attempts at using primary sources to create a pseudobiography, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Witkowski. Also I would appreciate someone looking over the sources at Die Glocke, they seem rather thin, and depend heavily on conspiracy theory books by Adventures Unlimited Press. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Bouncing around the Internet I came upon a publication via Google Scholar titled "Thermodynamics≠ Information Theory: Science's Greatest Sokal Affair," seemingly claiming a widely practiced and modernly well-recognized misuse of terminology relating to information theory, thermodynamics, and entropy, and calling out Wikipedia as a propogater of this error, specifically pointing up various Wikipedia pages as examples of such. I don't know how seriously this ought to be taken or if it has been previously addressed since the publication dates to 2012 (but not to my knowledge, having tinkered here and there with some pages pronounced upon). DeistCosmos ( talk) 05:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
See [21] which I reverted. Editor User: Doug Coldwell removed sourced text saying it was pov. The section heading was also changed from "sources of the legend" to "sources", although multiple sources call it a legend. [22] Dougweller ( talk) 13:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This has been raised before. I think a suitable redirect to poltergeist would do. Two newspaper sources I don't think are enough to establish an entire article, and numerous fringe sources are re-added now and again. Goblin Face ( talk) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Mass content added to this article by new IP, in some cases copied from other articles and numerous fringe sources added. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion on fringe conspiracy theories at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. (Belated signature - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC))
The article appears to be object of some ongoing and rather aggressive PROFRINGE editing. I've been doing a lot of reverting. Personally I think the whole article needs a rewrite with all of the conspiracy stuff chopped down to essentials and relegated to a single section per WP:DUE. In the meantime extra-eyes would be appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
As some might know we have had problems in the past with fringe positions being pushed in DYK, eg by Paul Bedson (who I think is still around editing). See my comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. I've tried to make Cronica Walliae less pov - it was suggesting that Madoc existed and travelled to America. Dougweller ( talk) 17:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
User who has already been using two IPS trying to delete reliable sources from the article calling them biased, skeptical or written by atheists etc. Lot's of ranting on the talk-page. Goblin Face ( talk) 12:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Really need more participants there, it's getting pretty heated and I don't have time right now. Dougweller ( talk) 19:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Conspiracy Con ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location ( talk) 08:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Attempt to remove 'allegory' and 'pseudohistory' from lead by an SPA, I think more participants are required. See Talk:Atlantis#Allegory, pseudo-history. Dougweller ( talk) 09:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the legions of authors from Adventures Unlimited Press ... any thoughts? BlueSalix ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
John Coleman (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One-world government CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location ( talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone review these article about UFOs, alien abduction, and DNA analysis of alien hair (!) and and see if they need to be deleted, merged, or if they can be re-written and sourced in compliance with WP:FRINGE? A quick search found only coverage in the usual UFO/conspiracy website, but given that Chalker's book was published by a mainstream publisher there may be legitimate reviews and debunking buried underneath. Abecedare ( talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I would also look into Antônio Vilas Boas. A few good sources and a lot of fringe sources. And the infobox is definitely being used as an NPOV workaround. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
There is some controversy on the Exorcism article as an editor is attempting to label the practice a form of pseudoscience. See the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Electronic harassment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New media section gives undue weight to content sourced to a conspiracy TV show. New Incidents section synthesizes a list of "targeted individuals" based on Press TV coverage. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see this article. Problems with editor inserting fringe sources into the lead, he is also using the talk-page as a forum. Regarding near-death studies due to lack of interest I will attempt to fix this also. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Dulce Base ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm going to stop reverting an insistent IP that keeps inserting a plug for a book that's so obscure and unreliable its pages consist of b&w xerox copies spiral bound together. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim Hoffman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
911 CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location ( talk) 08:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
List of "notables" in this is rather sketchy, plus the template seems to be dropped on the page on anyone who ever expressed a 9/11 doubt. Mangoe ( talk) 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Help wanted at World Wireless System. This article is about Nikola Tesla's proposed wireless power transmission technology (see also Wardenclyffe Tower). The article is filled with original research, speculation, synthesis, lengthy quotes and quite a few primary sources. Any help trimming and copy editing the article so that it conforms to WP:FRINGE would be appreciated.- Mr X 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Qigong fever ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This popped up in the New Pages feed. There's one sentence at the end that acknowledges that qi may not be a scientific concept ("Prof. He Zuoxiu (b.1927) stood as ardent opponent of qigong practices, claiming them to be pseudo-scientific."), but other than that it's entirely in-universe, wth sentences like:
Powerful trigger for widespread of the qigong vogue was made by Yan Xin 严新 (b.1949, Sichuan), whose activity was tested in several scientific laboratories of Beijing: researchers at Qinghua University publicized results of experiments showing that Yan's "external qi" had changed the molecular structure of water at a distance of 2,000 km.
Kolbasz ( talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a chunk of the really gross bloat and promotional link spam from George Gurdjieff although the article remains highly promotional. If history is any guide the followers will shortly launch an attempt to restore all or most of it. Extra eyes would be appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is subject to frequent- drive-by tagging with no engagement on Talk. It may require semiprotecting to get the anon(s) to engage and explain their problem. Guy ( Help!) 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Here we have a bunch of similar phenomenon discussed in what at first glance seems a sober article. I got there because it has turned up at the HAARP article (and I'm sorry to have to say this, but the feds are looking to transfer this to some academic group, so it may get switched back on again, raining fresh fringiness from the skies). There are forks off it of various locales. The title is a bit of a problem, but not sure what could be done that's better. Mangoe ( talk) 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Some recent questionable IP activity at this article; may need eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Cronica Walliae where User:Doug Coldwell says "The word "legendary" has been taken out of the article since the article is a description on Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 historical manuscript. The exact wording is furnished from Llwyd's manuscript for reference. The book itself can be obtained in a University of Wales reprint by Professor Ieuam M. Williams as was previously published by David Powel's 1584 book Historie of Cambria. The issue is not about truth, but if it has been published previously by a relaible source -> see WP:TRUTH. There are no references that Llwyd's Cronica Walliae is a fictional work, but there are several references by reliable sources that his manuscript is a historical work.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ike Altgens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ike Altgens is currently a good article nominee at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#World history. While I think the subject is worthy of a stand-alone article, there are various issues with sourcing that violate WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COPYVIO. First, there are a number of fringe sources that lend undue weight to an alleged controversy regarding his photograph (e.g. Trask, Fetzer, Groden, Marrs). Secondly, primary source material from the Warren Commission is used to synthesize support for the alleged controversy. Thirdly, there are a couple YouTube videos that appear to violate our copyright policy. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Jeff Rense ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While I do see mention in reliable sources, I am wondering if either Jeff Rense or Rense.com (which redirects to the first) have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subjects to warrant a stand-alone article. Relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (people)/ WP:ENTERTAINER and Wikipedia:Notability (media)/ WP:BROADCAST. Related to this, there appears to be some discussion regarding the reliability of www.rense.com in the Archives. - Location ( talk) 04:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead section of the article is corrupted with undue weight by cherry picking information from doubtful sources. See the discussion. The discussion has led to nothing, and based on the comments and edit history of the opponent user, I have got serious doubts on his good faith. Therefore, I ask for your help. -- Gwafton ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine-tuned Universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See the talk-page. There has been objections to citing some sources. Also a user raised concerns that Robert L. Parks comment "If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life." was off-topic. Should this quote be included? Let know on the talk-page where I have discussed this with some other editors. PunkRockerTom ( talk) 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened up a request for feedback regarding the acceptability of a conspiracy source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics ( www.isgp.nl ). Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the attempt to use this to push a fringe view had been averted, but it's been reinstated. Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened up another request for feedback regarding the acceptability of a conspiracy source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#22 November 1963 ( 22november1963.org.uk ). Thanks! - Location ( talk) 00:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Needs some work - an alleged psychic medium, I added an EL about a sting that took place recently, but maybe it could be used as a source isntead. I'm withdrawing from a lot of editing right now for obvious reasons, I just won't have the time. I've pruned my watchlist heavily. Dougweller ( talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Now being sourced from the website of the Chronognostic Research Foundation. If someone would like to take a look before I remonstrate with the editor, I would appreciate it. Mangoe ( talk) 01:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For those who are interested, there is discussion about the intersection of BLP and FRINGE going on in the Talk page, and editing, of the article above. Jytdog ( talk) 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
More concrete question now. Griffin advocates the use of laetrile to treat cancer and has engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism. My understanding of the intersection of BLP and PSCI is that WP should simply and directly provide the scientific consensus on these issues. Two users, Atsme and Srich32977 disagree, for reasons explained by them here. The current content is:
Cancer and AIDS denial In 1974, Griffin wrote and published the book World Without Cancer and released it as a documentary video; [1] [2] its second edition appeared in 1997. In the book and the video, Griffin asserts that cancer is a metabolic disease facilitated by the insufficient dietary consumption of laetrile. He contends that "eliminating cancer through a nondrug therapy has not been accepted because of the hidden economic and power agendas of those who dominate the medical establishment" [3] and he wrote, "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health". [4] Since the 1970s, the use of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[26] Emanuel Landau, then a Project Director for the APHA, wrote a book review for the American Journal of Public Health, which noted that Griffin "accepts the 'conspiracy' theory ... that policy-makers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it". [5]
Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments, including sellers of laetrile. [1] [6] failed verification He does not sell laetrile himself. [1]
Griffin founded The Cancer Cure Foundation "in December of 1976 as a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in alternative cancer therapies". The foundation expanded its mission in March, 2002 to include disseminating information about other medical conditions, and it changed its name to The Cure Research Foundation. citation needed In 2010, Griffin engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism, claiming that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) "doesn't exist" and that antiretroviral medications (rather than the HIV virus) cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). [7]
references
- ^ a b c Lagnado, Lucette (2000-03-22). " Laetrile Makes a Comeback Selling to Patients Online". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
- ^ "Controversial Cancer Drug Laetrile Enters Political Realms". Middlesboro Daily News. 1977-08-10.
- ^ " New Library Books". Books (Grand Forks Herald). 2003-07-13. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
- ^ Nightingale SL (1984). "Laetrile: the regulatory challenge of an unproven remedy". Public Health Rep 99 (4): 333–8. PMC 1424606. PMID 6431478.
- ^ Landau, Emanuel (1976). "World Without Cancer". American Journal of Public Health. 66 (7): 696. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.66.7.696-a.
- ^ Jones, Marianna (1976-10-11). "Cure or fraud?". Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
- ^ Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). " Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve"? Media Matters for America. (Noting that Griffin is an AIDS denier who believes the government shot down Flight 93 on 9/11.)
Thoughts?
This is a classic case of synthesis. We have one source that mentions Griffin supported laetrile as a treatment, but says nothing about the scientific acceptance of the treatment. Then we have another source that says its use is unaccepted by medicine but does not mention Griffin and we put the two together to say that Griffin supported fringe medicine and use it as a coatrack to provide information about why it is fringe. TFD ( talk) 03:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." (my bolds)
I agree with TFD, and to some degree with Alexbrn regarding WP:UNDUE as it relates to laetrile. I also see classic WP:SYNTH which was an issue brought up on the TP by Srich32977. The dispute is not over the inclusion of certain facts and opinions, rather it is over how they are stated in the BLP. There is a simple solution - rewrite the offensive prose that states matter-of-factly that Griffin IS a conspiracy theorist (contentious labeling, pejorative). Replace it with referred to as a conspiracy theorist. The CT label has since spread to the infobox where it is listed as his occupation. It also reflects on the laetrile argument. We are here now because Griffin wrote a book about laetrile (amygdalin) in World Without Cancer. It is one small facet of his BLP, yet it has taken center stage, WP:UNDUE. The book is based on scientific research (Memorial Sloan-Keterring, Dean Burk, etc.) that has been disputed by orthodox medicine, denied approval by FDA, and criticized by NCI, but that isn't what's at issue in this BLP. No one is proposing the removal of facts and opinions as long as the two are differentiated and reliably sourced. The problem is that we are being denied (reverted) the opportunity to expand and improve the article by including information relative to what Griffin wrote in his book - WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Also see WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:FRINGE - Evaluating Claims wherein the following key statements apply (my bold): Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. The article is clearly a critical assessment of Griffin, therefore a coatrack, and at the very least, WP:NOTADVOCATE, in what appears to be a mission to root out quackery and condemn it to the fires of hell. Many of the sources cited are cherrypicked, and contain only trivial mention of quackery, none of which are directly related to Griffin, or his book. Others are simply unreliable, like Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology. A few are partisan (Media Matters for America), or include information that is 35 years old, some of which has since been questioned by current research and/or contradicted by actual clinical results. And that is the crux of the argument. Atsme☯ Consult 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn, saying that someone "promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment" is not "an inclusion of pseudoscientific views", any more than saying Obama is a Christian is an inclusion of Christian views. "The governing policies regarding fringe theories [guideline] are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." If your interpretation of how neutrality applies to fringe, then it is correct for the Obama article. Griffin holds a fringe view on cancer treatment. Let's go to a source that does not mention him and explain what the scientific community thinks. Obama believes that a man once lived who was actually God, who raised the dead and cast out devils, lets add what scientists think about that. TFD ( talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the problem extends far beyond FRINGEBLP. Griffin does not belong on this noticeboard because amygdalin (laetrile or B17) is not pseudoscience as defined by WP:Fringe. Furthermore, the purpose of Griffin's book is "to marshall the evidence that cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease." It also focuses on "areas of need for further research with vitamin B17." Griffin advocates a patient's freedom to choose treatment. Now then, read the following which establishes that laetrile (amygdalin, B17) is not pseudoscience according to guidelines:
That is not what we are seeing at Griffin. The BLP violations must be cleaned up per BLP policy. Maintaining Griffin as a WP:Coatrack is an embarrassment to the project. Perhaps it is time to take this dispute to the next level in order to get a fresh new set of neutral eyes looking at it. Atsme☯ Consult 19:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative"
"With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment." - Memorial Sloan Keterring Cancer Center
The problem with Griffin's BLP began when information that belongs in the article was reverted in what appears to be behavior representative of WP:OWN and WP:NOTADVOCATE. The "quackery" claims in the article are the result of SYNTH and POV. The latter combined with the exclusion of material I attempted to include not only creates a COATRACK, it takes on the appearance of being supported by those who oppose CAM, which may account for the pejorative claims of quackery and pseudoscience. Other problems include WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE which is part of the reason Griffin is being discussed here where it clearly doesn't belong. Some of the RS may very well be reliable but because of the way they are being used (synth) it doesn't matter. Some are simply not reliable at all which I've pointed out numerous times. What I find rather disconcerting is the level at which you WP:DONTGETIT, especially considering these issues are plaguing a BLP. Far too much weight has been placed on pseudoscience, especially considering Griffin authored one book about a natural compound (B17, or laetrile, or amygdalin), and you are now trying to make it an argument about orthodox medicine vs CAM. We have seriously strayed off-topic. With all due respect, I really don't care if the world-wide attention Griffin's books have garnered fly in the face of traditional medicine which, based on the death toll, doesn't appear to be the magic cure for cancer, either. The ongoing scientific research on amygdalin is REAL, and if it poses a threat to your advocacy, sorry - it's not my problem. My concerns are focused on whether or not the article is NPOV and compliant with WP policy. It is with much regret that I have to report it is not. Atsme☯ Consult 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Despite this whole debate having a very low level of importance in the BLP, it appears to be of high importance to a few editors who insist on making Griffin a topic of pseudoscience despite the contradictory description in WP:FRINGE. I consult you to please read the following research collection because it further substantiates my interpretation of WP policy and contradicts the outdated RS used at Griffin: [36]
Definition of complementary medicine adopted by Cochrane Collaboration - “Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a broad domain of healing resources that encompasses all health systems, modalities, and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the politically dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period. CAM includes all such practices and ideas self-defined by their users as preventing or treating illness or promoting health and well-being. Boundaries within CAM and between the CAM domain and that of the dominant system are not always sharp or fixed.”.
Full article is here: [37] Hardly what I consider quackery or pseudoscience. The antiquated claims in combination with outdated and/or poor sourcing on Griffin need to be updated so the article will be in compliance with BLP policy. I wish all of you a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Enjoy time with your family, and may we all enjoy a happy and prosperous 2015!!! Atsme☯ Consult 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
More problems with removal of sourced content etc. Evidently at least one contributor doesn't agree with sourced scientific material refuting the fringe creationist/theological arguments presented there, and is under the impression that only one side of the argument belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Creation-evolution controversy#Public policy issues
Creation-evolution controversy#Freedom of speech
'Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution'
These two sources appear representative and reliable witnesses to the views of the community they represent, one corroborating the other. This has been contested. Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#RfC: Claims of discrimination against Darwin sceptics
Have been advised to ask here from Reliable_sources notice board, the links seem to comply with external links guide. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the other talk page, the specific edit in this case is "Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution." To be accurate, the statement would have to be "Dr Jerry Bergman, in his book Slaughter of the Dissidents, claims that there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution.". The source is a reliable source just not for the edit in question. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Creationists do indeed believe that they are victims of discrimination as a result of their dogmatic rejection of the scientific fact of evolution. We scarcely need more data points for this, especially if they risk giving the impression that this persecution complex is valid. We can probably find some flat earth believers who feel they are discriminated against in the field of geology, too. Guy ( Help!) 09:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In related news Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 00:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Universal Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an Australian alt-med cult that has diligently scrubbed Google of unflattering content. And there's a LOT of unflattering content. The shills are now watching the article, so more eyes would be helpful. I think I may be the only non-SPA watching it! Guy ( Help!) 22:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks like we have a low intensity edit war going on between two opposing groups of SPAs in this article. I think both sides have agenda issues and I have been urging them to keep it NPOV, but I am not sanguine. One side seems to be intent on turning the article into something close to an indictment of the group (serious pseudoscience and quackery to be sure), while the other, mostly one SPA, is trying to play defense. I don't want to get BITEY with new editors, but I am worried that there is little chance for consensus and there is a lot of suspicion and ill-will starting to show up on the talk page. As of a few minutes ago I posted on the talk page basically asking for a 24hr cease fire while they go and read some of the applicable guidelines. Some additional oversight and possible intervention by other experienced editors would be appreciated. Thanks.
CC: GUY, Dougweller and Cullen328 - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Extraterrestrial hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I did (perhaps somewhat controversially) this. The entire passage, I thought, suffered from violation of WP:WEIGHT considerations. The entire article, however, may be unduly weighted since the idea is so far-fetched as to be only relevant as a conspiracy-theory jaunt. Help in recasting the article from a more serious and neutral outlook would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
"A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity."[29] See Acupuncture#Headaches and migraines. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.
"A 2014 Australian clinical study involving 282 men and women showed that needle and laser acupuncture were modestly better at relieving knee pain from osteoarthritis than no treatment, but not better than simulated (sham) laser acupuncture."[30] See Acupuncture#Extremity conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.
"According to NCCAM, results of a systematic review that combined data from 11 clinical trials with more than 1,200 participants suggested that acupuncture (and acupuncture point stimulation) may help with certain symptoms associated with cancer treatments.[85]" See Acupuncture#Cancer-related conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.
See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."
I think the key word is reputable, according to the wording of WP:MEDRS. For example, the reputations of NIMH and NCI are significantly different than that of NCCAM. Since it is not clear that NCCAM (see National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health#Criticism) is a reputable organisation I think we should leave the text out of the Acupuncture#Effectiveness section. If the question is WP:WEIGHT, the effectiveness section is bloated with a number of better sources.
See Talk:Acupuncture#Weight violation for the current discussion. While the discussion was still ongoing the tags were removed. Please comment on the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov.
Comments welcome.
jps ( talk) 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a few uses of "alleged" or "allegedly" in Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. that might require additional opinions. - Location ( talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Bilocation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is a stub and is fairly neutral, but it seems to avoid the obvious point that this kind of apparition violates several physical laws. How is it best to characterize this kind of magical claim without getting into the rather silly and pedantic rejoinder sentences such as "bilocation is impossible"?
jps ( talk) 22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Saints and levitation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the same vein as the above, this article is straightforward and rather neutral, but doesn't point out some of the obvious issues with these claims. I note, in a related bit, that our previously fraught yogic flying article has been scrubbed from Wikipedia with a redirect to TM.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Islam#For some sects.... There is a very small sect of Muslims known as Quranists that only take into account the words of the Quran. Other muslims (the vast majority) also believe in hadith, the reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad. The Quranists do not. Just as the lead to Christianity says "most" Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and the lead to Muhammad says that Muslims "almost universally" regard him as the last prophet [for info: the Ahmadiyya sect do not], I think the lead of Islam should say something like the "vast majority" of Muslims believe in the hadith. Other editors want to say effectively all Muslims believe in hadith, citing WP:FRINGE. I believe that is a misunderstanding of FRINGE which, in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories about a religion rather than fringe sects of that religion. Grateful for other inputs. DeCausa ( talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Portage County UFO chase ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not too fond of what was done by Dr Fil ( talk · contribs) here:
My recommendation is a wholesale revert, but I'd appreciate some input from other editors before throwing my weight around further.
In fact, we should probably go through and look carefully at all this user's contributions to Wikipedia. He is a passionate UFO true believer.
jps ( talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, then:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portage County UFO chase.
jps ( talk) 02:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In investigating the previous article, I ran across this extensive piece. Pascagoula Abduction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Help!
jps ( talk) 07:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Considerably changed recently. I've removed one source was which on Beall's list of predatory journals, but take a look at this source. Evidently Talpade used mercury engines. Dougweller ( talk) 19:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we revert to the more appropriate version? -- Ghirla -трёп- 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article does not clearly identify the supposed "syndrome" as pseudo-science. There is no warning for the readers to take care. The article seems to be based almost entirely on the works of fringe theorists. Is it ok? -- Ghirla -трёп- 09:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The article needs to be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Then rebuilt from good sources - if there are any. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackademic medicine. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
For anybody who missed it, note that in its wisdom Arbcom recently passed a motion in effect clarifying that discretionary sanctions apply to "any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Near-death studies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The proposal of this article is that "near-death studies" as promoted by IANDS is an academic discipline in the same way that, say, reincarnation research may have been so considered in the past. I think this is way oversold and rather unbalanced. In fact, I think that the claim that there is an academic "discipline" should be handled under the parapsychology umbrella in the same way we handled reincarnation research. Redirect to Near-death experience#Near-death studies might work well. Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Fringe, POV, and OR edits [44]. Dougweller ( talk) 19:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
See [45] Dougweller ( talk) 08:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Should we create a new category for articles relating to Hyperdiffusionism in archaeology? Dougweller ( talk) 15:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Current text in the lede is: TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." [46] Some editors think it is inappropriate to suggest that Traditional Chinese medicine is pseudoscience. There was a previous DR. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine.
Hello everyone, there is an RFC that editors from this noticeboard may be interested in commenting on: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. I added a quote instead of the previous text and I proposed on the talk page if the quote is still not satisfactory it can be rewritten. Thank you for your feedback. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Article and deletion discussion relevant to this noticeboard: Targeted Individual ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual (2nd nomination) Kolbasz ( talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone ever considered altering the above template in such a way as to allow it to not use the words "fringe theories" in the template as it appears, but rather the phrase "minority theories"? There is currently discussion about the definition of "fringe theories" here at Christ myth theory, where some individuals are advocating, I think not necessarily wholly unreasonably, that the "minority" theory that Jesus never existed might not qualify as a "fringe theory" the way that phrase is ordinarily used in everyday speech. Given the somewhat perjorative nature of the term fringe theory in a lot of circles, I can see potentially other instances in which the latter phrasing might be more reasonable than the former. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 21:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Lack of good sources and probably biased towards UFOlogy. Leave alone or nominate for deletion? Geogene ( talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Eyes may be needed on the Electronic harassment article - a contributor has been adding the same fringe-conspiracy-theory-promoting nonsense that was previously in the now-deleted Targeted Individual article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ayurveda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Should this article be covered by Arbcom sanctions on Pseudoscience, and should it also be categorised as such? I think it should be covered and is pseudoscience fwiw. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 16:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti: Roxy is well aware of the definition of vandalism, and your comment seems to be quite tangential to the original point. You should stop making up things to discredit editors that you disagree with. bobrayner ( talk) 18:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
For good measure: Wanjek, Christopher (2003). Bad Medicine: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Distance Healing to Vitamin O. John Wiley & Sons. p. 168. ISBN 9780471463153. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q=Ayurveda+pseudoscience+&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1&gws_rd=ssl Ayurveda is known to be a pseudoscience. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
New discussion started for this edit and this change. See Talk:Ayurveda#Violation of ASSERT. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I added another source and it was deleted. No matter what source is used it will likely be deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Izz is a businessman who sold his online recruiting firm, Jobs in Dubai, for $9 million in 2011 according to a published announcement.
He's promoted himself as an inventor, having patented a type of condom wrapper, and actively promoting his designs for an emergency oxygen mask and a space tower. In a recent RfC, multiple editors argued against presenting these inventions, and they've been substantially de-emphasized. However, these comments ( [8] [9]) bring up points that might be best dealt here, as the inventions appear simplistic to the point that it's likely no science or engineering journalist would ever take them serious enough to even mention them. How should we treat this given we're unlikely to ever have sources beyond his own p.r.? Have similar inventors been discussed here? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Semi-relevant discussions from archives:
Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the "inventions" discussed to support their notability. Lack of characterization as "inventor" or discussion of "inventions" in reliable sources. The inclusion of these inventions and the characterization as inventor is not supported by significant coverage in reliable sources. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
A series of edits needs to be examined. The all-caps REDUCED is a dead giveaway of a POV editor. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Universal rotation curve ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The AfD crashed and burned and I'm trying to deal with the damage. So far, we have had no help from editors except to say that because there are inline citations to Salucci's papers, we therefore have a reliable article. (It's total WP:ADVERT, but that doesn't seem to bother anyone). Help would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Over at WikiProject Chemistry, we've been trying to resolve some of the merge proposals for articles in our scope. One of these is a proposed merger of Fluoride toxicity into Fluoride. There's not a strong consensus either way at the moment, but it seems agreed that Fluoride Toxicity is (or was) overly reliant on non- WP:MEDRS compliant sources. As it stands now, I think the main question is whether, once non- WP:MEDRS-sourced statements are removed, there will be enough left over to justify its own article. Would anyone mind taking a moment to go through and assess to what degree it will be possible to clean up the article without gutting it? 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 13:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Having difficulty finding any reliable sources for this guy. Goblin Face ( talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
How do we address cases where a fringe theory has become accepted science/medicine?
While EMDR is now well supported by medical research, but it was highly controversial from its inception in the late 1980s, through the 1990s and beyond, because of its inclusion of eye movements that were not supported by research at the time. Basically, the criticisms were that EMDR was just a combination of techniques that were already known to work, with an eye movement component added to make it appear original.
Recently, research has been published demonstrating the eye movement component has some effect. This has resulted in editors rewriting the article, especially the controversies section, to repeatedly highlight the new research and remove the skeptical viewpoint from the article (the topic is covered by reliable skeptical sources including Quackwatch, Skepdic, and Skeptic). While this is ultimately a NPOV/MEDRS problem, it would be helpful to know how similar problems have been addressed in other Wikipedia articles or on this noticeboard. We could also use help going over the medical research to see what criticism's have and have not been addressed by subsequent research. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
An official representative for Sheldrake (maybe himself?) has opened a thread with some concerns, and of course they should be taken seriously and treated civilly. We need more eyes.
I also wonder if Iantresman is violating his topic ban in that thread? -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote this essay to fill a little niche in the ecosystem of essays. Maybe the niche is already covered by an existing essay, or maybe it would be better as part of an existing essay, or maybe what it says is best left unsaid. In any case feedback/contributions are welcome. vzaak 20:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is a new proposal without the misplaced ref. Is there any reason to exclude this now based on Wikipedia policy? Talk:Ayurveda#Reliable sources added is the old discussion. A new discussion is at Talk:Ayurveda#Inclusion of pseudoscience within article body. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
More sources for expanding the article can be found at Talk:Ayurveda#Characterization of ayurveda as pseudoscience in sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
New Editor deleting mass chunks of the article and accusing Wikipedia editors of being biased. Goblin Face ( talk) 04:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
New user adding spiritualist books to the lead and claiming "neuroscientists generally assume" or are making assumptions that the NDE is hallucination. Typical rant on the talk-page about 'bias' or skeptical sources in the article or about "materialism". The talk-page also reeks of sock-puppets. Any extra eyes on this appreciated. Goblin Face ( talk) 01:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources being used to insert content. Some eyes would help. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 15:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a running debate over multiple threads over the past month regarding how to deal with the term " jihadist" as a descriptor for militant group ISIL/ISIS. This descriptor is widely used in Western sources without qualification, however it is used by Al-Jazeera with "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" qualifiers. A collective of 126 Islamic scholars that published an open letter described in the ISIL#Criticism section saying that the group's actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality".
The currently active discussion can be found here. The choices, as I understand it, come down to how much weight should be given to this issue; whether is should be prominent in the lead, in the lead but in an {{ efn}}, or just left as is in the #Criticism section. I recently introduced the idea that the Fringe guidelines may apply and we are looking for guidance as to how much weight this concept should be given.~ Technophant ( talk) 19:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
We have another SPA User:TineIta who is engaging in disruptive editing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and so forth - in clear violation of the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on Talk:Homeopathy. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could swing by and verify whether a dope-slap is needed. TIA SteveBaker ( talk) 16:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is something sourced to basically fringe sources (from the archaeological perspective), mainly followers of Gimbutas with no archaeological qualifications. It's certainly a mess of original research with most of the sources and linked articles not mentioning a "Danube Civilization". Dougweller ( talk) 16:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't turn this into me versus you Dougweller :) Please don't try to make me the bad guy here. you mention problems with copyvio? not anymore. I work hard not to copyvio and the last couple of months there have been none to my knowledge, and if there been some it is not intentionally. And please stop making it sound like the Institute of Archaeomythology are some kind of sect followers of Marija Gimbutas. She is a very respected scholar. And you disrespecting the members. I feel that you harassing me a little bit and I don't like it, I makes me fell very unpleasant. I have always been nice to you and other Wikipedians. As I told you before i am disabled and it is very hard for me just to be a part of Wikipedia without any help. So please when you write that i am poor in English, and that i dont' posses the knowledge about a subject, or that the article about the Danube civilization is a mess, it makes me very sad. I don't want to use more time in this discussion, it's to hard. I think it is very sad that there are no place for me in here without you correcting many of the edits i do.
If there are consesnsus then just merge the Danube civilization into Old Europe, i think there is a lot of good information. It is not because i don't want to discuss it anymore, but i can't, to hard. Have a nice day my friend :) Lactasamir ( talk) 23:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This article has plainly had a lot of care taken with it, but some aspects make me uneasy from a WP:FRINGE perspective. For example:
Would appreciate other views on whether there is anything here that should concern this noticeboard. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Boyd Bushman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does this "Lockheed engineer reveals aliens exist" hoax deserve its own article, or just an entry at List of hoaxes? - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
This problematic article needs some attention. A Halloween traffic spike has brought in a majority of frivolous Keep votes at the the AfD, so the article is likely staying around -- but is currently a playground for SPA's inserting arguments and original research, frivolously requesting citations for obvious information, and even modifying newspaper quotes. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This new article was nominated for deletion, but the template removed. I'm not sure if this is notable enough, or if it's good. Take a look. -- Brangifer ( talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Friends of Science ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yikes. This astroturfing organization has an article which doesn't even seem to indicate that the organization itself is an advocacy group for promoting global warming denial. Probably a victim of the climate change wars of 5 years ago. Should this article exist? Can someone clean it up? I notice it claims certain members who are not currently listed on the website.
Very confusing. Very in need of help.
jps ( talk) 19:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
So, what do people think of this framing [14]? I am trying to establish the context of this kind of organization. jps ( talk) 15:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Tinley Park Lights ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can anyone find any WP:FRIND sources that would justify this article?
jps ( talk) 16:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National UFO Reporting Center
Seems like almost like a WP:VANITY article to me.
jps ( talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Wales UFO sightings ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Should this article exist?
jps ( talk) 16:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Article is a serious mess and a problem with fringe claims. I have to admit the article is rather an embarrassment. No reliable sources on this article, only occult or credulous 'esoteric' books being cited. The article reads like 'factual' or an advert with these planes with fairies or spiritual beings on actually existing. I am not sure what to do here, I would suggest nuking a lot of the article and weeding out some of the dubious claims, not sure what would be left though? I doubt there are any mainstream scientific sources that have evaluated these fringe about different occult planes. The article seems to mostly use theosophy sources, not really reliable. There may be a struggle to find good sources. Any suggestions here? Goblin Face ( talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Sergio Arcacha Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject of the first article was sought by Jim Garrison during his investigation of the assassination of JFK and the Trial of Clay Shaw. This was reported in the papers of the time and, as with almost everything else associated with assassination, made its way into the HSCA report. And if it's in the HSCA report, it makes it way into conspiracy books. As far as I can tell, the only way to make an article out of this is using either primary sources or fringe sources. Redirect to List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw? Thoughts? (Articles based on all of this are: Friends of Democratic Cuba, Crusade to Free Cuba Committee, and Cuban Revolutionary Council.) Thanks! - Location ( talk) 23:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there such a thing? I so need one to award to a first class troll right now. - Roxy the dog™ ( resonate) 15:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
See [ [17]]. I thought this might be about Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad which was just edited by someone removing an unsourced statement (which sadly I can't source) but it seems to relate more directly to the Sung Document which is also mentioned at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, 1170s and 1178. Also mentioned in the article is Abu Bakr II. These could all benefit from more watchers. Dougweller ( talk) 15:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone with a physics background needs to look at this. There are two sections especially including "Information-only teleportation" which seems to contain some fringe material. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Winter Solstice Alignment Cave in Manchester, Kentucky. I was going to bring another related article, Red Bird River Shelter Petroglyphs to the attention of this board also. Both have claims of Old World inscriptions. Dougweller ( talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with this article, every month. A group of IPs keep white-washing the article and deleting any reliable sources like James Alcock etc. There seems to be a pattern here. Most recently 50.247.107.41 ( talk · contribs) claims to be Krippner himself, but another account has claimed this already, as has another IP. I would assume all these IPs are Krippner or associated with him, same pattern of removing the same sources. I have asked for him to seek consensus or at least discuss on the talk-page first but he has not done this.
The same sort of thing happened on the Sam Parnia article and it had to be locked. I don't have time to keep looking over this article as I am busy with other stuff right now but this pattern of editing seems to be constant and monthly. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Fringe claims sourced to psychic journals being added to this article by 74.195.244.87 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has consistently re-added these fringe sources a number of times after being asked to seek consensus first (see talk-page). Goblin Face ( talk) 03:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Dorothy Kilgallen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The "On This Day" hook for today's anniversary of Dorothy Kilgallen's death looks really dicey to me. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The "lunatic charlatans" of whom Jimbo spoke are still trying to rewrite the real world through Wikipedia. The most persistent WP:SPA has filed a mediation request. Given that the proponents openly admit in their own online petition that reflecting their POV would require the implementation and enforcement of new policies, and Jimbo's robust response, it would help if a couple of the regulars here could help the mediation volunteer to understand why this is not an issue that can be mediated, but a straightforward collision between The Truth™ and WP:NPOV. Guy ( Help!) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up, on Talk:Ebola virus disease, there have been recent attempts to have various "hypotheses" and "traditional approaches" to ebola treatment added to the article, based on minimal/unreliable sourcing. It would be helpful if people could spend some time looking over articles and talk pages related to ebola, ebola treatment and ebola outbreaks to ensure that fringe theories are not being smuggled in to them. — Tom Morris ( talk) 17:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering what's really going on here with all these solo edits. There is no collaborative editing occurring here:
Diff of thirteen+ edits, ending with an "under construction" template, but no activity. I want to AGF, but this needs more eyes. Some of the edit summaries, especially the first one (23:22, November 7, 2014 ), are dubious, if not worse. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Generation Rescue ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A primary sourced draft whitewash has been posted to Talk:Generation Rescue. I think this article needs some eyes. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The AfD for this fringe and tabloid churnalism-sourced bio is being contested at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Boyd_Bushman. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this notable? The sources are terrible. Goblin Face ( talk) 10:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Lots of sciency-sounding claims, but very little, if anything, in the way of independent sources found for this org.
Part of a walled garden of CFZ articles linked above. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This bio probably needs some balancing. I get the impression that besides the one book he came to the public eye as a conspiracy theory pusher, but the odd structure of the article shows signs of trying to minimize this. Mangoe ( talk) 13:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Some recent editing activity at this article has raised some questions about sourcing and weight. The views of fringe-savvy editors will no doubt be useful in informing the ongoing debate. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
(Add) to keep things neat, It would be nice if any follow-up discussion took place at Talk:Integrative medicine rather than bifurcating the discussion by starting here too. 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't believe it hasn't been nominated for deletion before now. I've AfD'ed it here. BlueSalix ( talk) 19:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
See recent POV edits and huge rant on the talk-page. Goblin Face ( talk) 09:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I have found a source on the real site [18] which, compared with the article, makes clear just what a mess this is. I'm not utterly convinced that the rock now enshrined actually came from the NRHP site. If someone could find a reliable source which connects the one to the other it would help a great deal. Mangoe ( talk) 19:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Some new stuff has been added, and it looks like OR and fringe OR to me, but I am not sure, I could use a second opinion. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 15:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
An ANI regarding the deletion of editor comments in Talk by fringe theories editors is active here. BlueSalix ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The 1001: A Nature Trust ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The founder of the World Wildlife Fund got a 1000 rich people together to contribute to the WWF's financial endowment. Some believe that this group of people are a cabal that does nefarious things with all their money and power (e.g. [19]). I am posting to solicit additional opinions on the talk page as to whether a secret membership list reported by one source is appropriate for inclusion. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
why else would we be naming such particular individuals? If the list were to be included, there would have to be a fundamental rewording to avoid any such implication.: The reason, why we should choose those particular individuals, is easy to explain. Huismann put it like this (p. 170): "Some of the names I was seeing for the first time, but most of them sounded familiar, because they were prominent amongst the world's political and financial elite.". Maybe I sould have mentioned it in my edit, but I did not, assuming it would be obvious: all cited members are very prominent or influential persons . We can add less known members as well of course if wished. For example we could add more personalities from the German business elite, such as the bankers, but I don't know whether readers in the en:WP are the same interested in persons like Robert Pferdmenges and Hermann Josef Abs ( cf. Süddeutsche Zeitung) as German readers might be. But of course we can reword the text connected with the lists to avoid undesirable suggestive effects.
The Guardian piece you cite quotes Huismann [...quote...] which actually does amount to a conspiracy theory, and one that we arguably shouldn't be promoting without evidence that it is taken seriously by other commentators [...]: User:Location stressed this quote in the Guardian's article (which was my own reference), too, to explain his doubts for the membership lists. But: 1. This also can be treated as Huismann's legitimate working assumption, since his book's chapter (2014, p. 170-174) according to the membership lists does not includes this claim. And 2: Anyway the question, whether the membership lists are authentic or not has to be considered independently from what anyone may conclude in a second step. If we try to avoid any information that could promote neuronal WWF-critical associations of readers, this no longer would represent quality assurance. It would mean self-censorship. Exactly this is, what the German media criticized when Amazon and others removed Huismann's book some years ago, because of the pressure made by WWF. This should be history now. In Germany it is at least. Amazon now even prints the English version ("Printed in Germany by Amazon Distribution GmbH Leipzig", I read in the English 2014 edition). Greetings, -- Anglo-Araneophilus ( talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Is it the complete list, or isn't it?The 1001 club includes 1001 members (the number is fix - in case a member dies, the next aspirant succeeds). The list I added in my edit sums up those selected names, Huismann listed in Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f. On page 172 Huismann provides the facsimile of an extract of the membership list. There you can find further names of members. Media reports of Huismann researches ( such as by SZ) mention further members. All names I listed in my edit come from Huismann 2014, p. 170, 172f.
"cannot simultaneously make statements about the membership including 'businessmen with suspect connections' etc and list members without seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy": As already mentioned, I did not support the declaration 'businessmen with suspect connections'. As far as I understood User:Location regards this as hint at existing allegations, but better ask himself, why he supports this. This is not my subject here. I just want to add an extract of the membership list as given by Huismann. This is what important media outlets report and I don't see why WP should block this information. But if you don't want an extract of members mentioned in the same article with the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' why should we delete the extract of members then (a factual claim)? Wouldn't it be better to delete the expression 'businessmen with suspect connections' (an inferential claim)?
it is only Huismann (of the sources you have cited) that thinks naming this long list of individuals is significant.: I don't consider 34 out of 1001 members as a "long list", but of course this is a Wiki and when the authors come to the result we should limit the extract to - let's say - 5 or 8 names, we can do this as well. Why not. I chose these 34, because all names in this list of Huismann's ectract represent very well known and important persons. I did not see a reason to reduce it. But of course we can do that, if the WP authors see here a necessity for it.
seriously risking violating WP:BLP policy - which is policy, and accordingly has to be followed, whether you consider it 'self-censorship' or not: No, WP:BLP policy is not made for legitimation of self-censorship but helps to secure quality standards of information. Up to now no-one has cited a single source that claims, that Dowling's membership lists cited in Huismann are products of a conspiracy theory. It would be a constructed claim to state this. I don't see any infringement of WP:BLP by listing about thirty worldwide very prominet "1001" members of the 1970s and 1980s out of one thousand. You know why I mentioned "self-censorship"? Even Politicians such as de:Burkhardt Müller-Sönksen (media-policy spokesperson of the FDP) called the reaction of the book wholesale to the pressure of WWF "self-censorship". The de:Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union (Union of German Journalists) even accused the WWF for "censorship". Greetings --, Anglo-Araneophilus ( talk) 02:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the material from The Guardian, do you have a specific proposal?You ask me that and then escaping to ad nauseam lamentation. Read your untenable claims and compare with the sources. No more is needed. Greetings, -- Anglo-Araneophilus ( talk) 20:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Some of you may recall that in August I brought up Chicago plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, a non-existent plot fabricated by Abraham Bolden after he was arrested on bribery charges. Per WP:FRINGE, I removed material related to this in List of events at Soldier Field ( diff), however, the material was recently restored, fringe sources and all, with a minor wording change ( diff). Another set of eyes would be helpful. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
A Polish secret Nazi antigravity weapon conspiracy theorist known only for being mentioned in one of Nick Cook's books. I can find no secondary RS for Igor Witkowski that are independent of the conspiracy claims, and there have been past attempts at using primary sources to create a pseudobiography, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Witkowski. Also I would appreciate someone looking over the sources at Die Glocke, they seem rather thin, and depend heavily on conspiracy theory books by Adventures Unlimited Press. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Bouncing around the Internet I came upon a publication via Google Scholar titled "Thermodynamics≠ Information Theory: Science's Greatest Sokal Affair," seemingly claiming a widely practiced and modernly well-recognized misuse of terminology relating to information theory, thermodynamics, and entropy, and calling out Wikipedia as a propogater of this error, specifically pointing up various Wikipedia pages as examples of such. I don't know how seriously this ought to be taken or if it has been previously addressed since the publication dates to 2012 (but not to my knowledge, having tinkered here and there with some pages pronounced upon). DeistCosmos ( talk) 05:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
See [21] which I reverted. Editor User: Doug Coldwell removed sourced text saying it was pov. The section heading was also changed from "sources of the legend" to "sources", although multiple sources call it a legend. [22] Dougweller ( talk) 13:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This has been raised before. I think a suitable redirect to poltergeist would do. Two newspaper sources I don't think are enough to establish an entire article, and numerous fringe sources are re-added now and again. Goblin Face ( talk) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Mass content added to this article by new IP, in some cases copied from other articles and numerous fringe sources added. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion on fringe conspiracy theories at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. (Belated signature - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC))
The article appears to be object of some ongoing and rather aggressive PROFRINGE editing. I've been doing a lot of reverting. Personally I think the whole article needs a rewrite with all of the conspiracy stuff chopped down to essentials and relegated to a single section per WP:DUE. In the meantime extra-eyes would be appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
As some might know we have had problems in the past with fringe positions being pushed in DYK, eg by Paul Bedson (who I think is still around editing). See my comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. I've tried to make Cronica Walliae less pov - it was suggesting that Madoc existed and travelled to America. Dougweller ( talk) 17:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
User who has already been using two IPS trying to delete reliable sources from the article calling them biased, skeptical or written by atheists etc. Lot's of ranting on the talk-page. Goblin Face ( talk) 12:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Really need more participants there, it's getting pretty heated and I don't have time right now. Dougweller ( talk) 19:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Conspiracy Con ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location ( talk) 08:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Attempt to remove 'allegory' and 'pseudohistory' from lead by an SPA, I think more participants are required. See Talk:Atlantis#Allegory, pseudo-history. Dougweller ( talk) 09:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the legions of authors from Adventures Unlimited Press ... any thoughts? BlueSalix ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
John Coleman (author) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One-world government CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location ( talk) 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone review these article about UFOs, alien abduction, and DNA analysis of alien hair (!) and and see if they need to be deleted, merged, or if they can be re-written and sourced in compliance with WP:FRINGE? A quick search found only coverage in the usual UFO/conspiracy website, but given that Chalker's book was published by a mainstream publisher there may be legitimate reviews and debunking buried underneath. Abecedare ( talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I would also look into Antônio Vilas Boas. A few good sources and a lot of fringe sources. And the infobox is definitely being used as an NPOV workaround. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
There is some controversy on the Exorcism article as an editor is attempting to label the practice a form of pseudoscience. See the discussion here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Electronic harassment ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New media section gives undue weight to content sourced to a conspiracy TV show. New Incidents section synthesizes a list of "targeted individuals" based on Press TV coverage. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see this article. Problems with editor inserting fringe sources into the lead, he is also using the talk-page as a forum. Regarding near-death studies due to lack of interest I will attempt to fix this also. Goblin Face ( talk) 16:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Dulce Base ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm going to stop reverting an insistent IP that keeps inserting a plug for a book that's so obscure and unreliable its pages consist of b&w xerox copies spiral bound together. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Jim Hoffman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
911 CT. Are there enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to qualify this for a stand-alone article? - Location ( talk) 08:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
List of "notables" in this is rather sketchy, plus the template seems to be dropped on the page on anyone who ever expressed a 9/11 doubt. Mangoe ( talk) 14:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Help wanted at World Wireless System. This article is about Nikola Tesla's proposed wireless power transmission technology (see also Wardenclyffe Tower). The article is filled with original research, speculation, synthesis, lengthy quotes and quite a few primary sources. Any help trimming and copy editing the article so that it conforms to WP:FRINGE would be appreciated.- Mr X 20:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Qigong fever ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This popped up in the New Pages feed. There's one sentence at the end that acknowledges that qi may not be a scientific concept ("Prof. He Zuoxiu (b.1927) stood as ardent opponent of qigong practices, claiming them to be pseudo-scientific."), but other than that it's entirely in-universe, wth sentences like:
Powerful trigger for widespread of the qigong vogue was made by Yan Xin 严新 (b.1949, Sichuan), whose activity was tested in several scientific laboratories of Beijing: researchers at Qinghua University publicized results of experiments showing that Yan's "external qi" had changed the molecular structure of water at a distance of 2,000 km.
Kolbasz ( talk) 12:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have removed a chunk of the really gross bloat and promotional link spam from George Gurdjieff although the article remains highly promotional. If history is any guide the followers will shortly launch an attempt to restore all or most of it. Extra eyes would be appreciated. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is subject to frequent- drive-by tagging with no engagement on Talk. It may require semiprotecting to get the anon(s) to engage and explain their problem. Guy ( Help!) 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Here we have a bunch of similar phenomenon discussed in what at first glance seems a sober article. I got there because it has turned up at the HAARP article (and I'm sorry to have to say this, but the feds are looking to transfer this to some academic group, so it may get switched back on again, raining fresh fringiness from the skies). There are forks off it of various locales. The title is a bit of a problem, but not sure what could be done that's better. Mangoe ( talk) 17:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Some recent questionable IP activity at this article; may need eyes. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Cronica Walliae where User:Doug Coldwell says "The word "legendary" has been taken out of the article since the article is a description on Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 historical manuscript. The exact wording is furnished from Llwyd's manuscript for reference. The book itself can be obtained in a University of Wales reprint by Professor Ieuam M. Williams as was previously published by David Powel's 1584 book Historie of Cambria. The issue is not about truth, but if it has been published previously by a relaible source -> see WP:TRUTH. There are no references that Llwyd's Cronica Walliae is a fictional work, but there are several references by reliable sources that his manuscript is a historical work.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ike Altgens ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ike Altgens is currently a good article nominee at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#World history. While I think the subject is worthy of a stand-alone article, there are various issues with sourcing that violate WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:COPYVIO. First, there are a number of fringe sources that lend undue weight to an alleged controversy regarding his photograph (e.g. Trask, Fetzer, Groden, Marrs). Secondly, primary source material from the Warren Commission is used to synthesize support for the alleged controversy. Thirdly, there are a couple YouTube videos that appear to violate our copyright policy. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Jeff Rense ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While I do see mention in reliable sources, I am wondering if either Jeff Rense or Rense.com (which redirects to the first) have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subjects to warrant a stand-alone article. Relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Notability (people)/ WP:ENTERTAINER and Wikipedia:Notability (media)/ WP:BROADCAST. Related to this, there appears to be some discussion regarding the reliability of www.rense.com in the Archives. - Location ( talk) 04:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead section of the article is corrupted with undue weight by cherry picking information from doubtful sources. See the discussion. The discussion has led to nothing, and based on the comments and edit history of the opponent user, I have got serious doubts on his good faith. Therefore, I ask for your help. -- Gwafton ( talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine-tuned Universe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
See the talk-page. There has been objections to citing some sources. Also a user raised concerns that Robert L. Parks comment "If the universe was designed for life, it must be said that it is a shockingly inefficient design. There are vast reaches of the universe in which life as we know it is clearly impossible: gravitational forces would be crushing, or radiation levels are too high for complex molecules to exist, or temperatures would make the formation of stable chemical bonds impossible... Fine-tuned for life? It would make more sense to ask why God designed a universe so inhospitable to life." was off-topic. Should this quote be included? Let know on the talk-page where I have discussed this with some other editors. PunkRockerTom ( talk) 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened up a request for feedback regarding the acceptability of a conspiracy source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics ( www.isgp.nl ). Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought that the attempt to use this to push a fringe view had been averted, but it's been reinstated. Dougweller ( talk) 14:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened up another request for feedback regarding the acceptability of a conspiracy source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#22 November 1963 ( 22november1963.org.uk ). Thanks! - Location ( talk) 00:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Needs some work - an alleged psychic medium, I added an EL about a sting that took place recently, but maybe it could be used as a source isntead. I'm withdrawing from a lot of editing right now for obvious reasons, I just won't have the time. I've pruned my watchlist heavily. Dougweller ( talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Now being sourced from the website of the Chronognostic Research Foundation. If someone would like to take a look before I remonstrate with the editor, I would appreciate it. Mangoe ( talk) 01:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For those who are interested, there is discussion about the intersection of BLP and FRINGE going on in the Talk page, and editing, of the article above. Jytdog ( talk) 04:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
More concrete question now. Griffin advocates the use of laetrile to treat cancer and has engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism. My understanding of the intersection of BLP and PSCI is that WP should simply and directly provide the scientific consensus on these issues. Two users, Atsme and Srich32977 disagree, for reasons explained by them here. The current content is:
Cancer and AIDS denial In 1974, Griffin wrote and published the book World Without Cancer and released it as a documentary video; [1] [2] its second edition appeared in 1997. In the book and the video, Griffin asserts that cancer is a metabolic disease facilitated by the insufficient dietary consumption of laetrile. He contends that "eliminating cancer through a nondrug therapy has not been accepted because of the hidden economic and power agendas of those who dominate the medical establishment" [3] and he wrote, "at the very top of the world's economic and political pyramid of power there is a grouping of financial, political, and industrial interests that, by the very nature of their goals, are the natural enemies of the nutritional approaches to health". [4] Since the 1970s, the use of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in the scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has never been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[26] Emanuel Landau, then a Project Director for the APHA, wrote a book review for the American Journal of Public Health, which noted that Griffin "accepts the 'conspiracy' theory ... that policy-makers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it". [5]
Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments, including sellers of laetrile. [1] [6] failed verification He does not sell laetrile himself. [1]
Griffin founded The Cancer Cure Foundation "in December of 1976 as a non-profit organization dedicated to research and education in alternative cancer therapies". The foundation expanded its mission in March, 2002 to include disseminating information about other medical conditions, and it changed its name to The Cure Research Foundation. citation needed In 2010, Griffin engaged in HIV/AIDS denialism, claiming that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) "doesn't exist" and that antiretroviral medications (rather than the HIV virus) cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). [7]
references
- ^ a b c Lagnado, Lucette (2000-03-22). " Laetrile Makes a Comeback Selling to Patients Online". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
- ^ "Controversial Cancer Drug Laetrile Enters Political Realms". Middlesboro Daily News. 1977-08-10.
- ^ " New Library Books". Books (Grand Forks Herald). 2003-07-13. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
- ^ Nightingale SL (1984). "Laetrile: the regulatory challenge of an unproven remedy". Public Health Rep 99 (4): 333–8. PMC 1424606. PMID 6431478.
- ^ Landau, Emanuel (1976). "World Without Cancer". American Journal of Public Health. 66 (7): 696. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.66.7.696-a.
- ^ Jones, Marianna (1976-10-11). "Cure or fraud?". Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-02-29.
- ^ Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). " Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve"? Media Matters for America. (Noting that Griffin is an AIDS denier who believes the government shot down Flight 93 on 9/11.)
Thoughts?
This is a classic case of synthesis. We have one source that mentions Griffin supported laetrile as a treatment, but says nothing about the scientific acceptance of the treatment. Then we have another source that says its use is unaccepted by medicine but does not mention Griffin and we put the two together to say that Griffin supported fringe medicine and use it as a coatrack to provide information about why it is fringe. TFD ( talk) 03:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. ... This also applies to other fringe subjects ..." (my bolds)
I agree with TFD, and to some degree with Alexbrn regarding WP:UNDUE as it relates to laetrile. I also see classic WP:SYNTH which was an issue brought up on the TP by Srich32977. The dispute is not over the inclusion of certain facts and opinions, rather it is over how they are stated in the BLP. There is a simple solution - rewrite the offensive prose that states matter-of-factly that Griffin IS a conspiracy theorist (contentious labeling, pejorative). Replace it with referred to as a conspiracy theorist. The CT label has since spread to the infobox where it is listed as his occupation. It also reflects on the laetrile argument. We are here now because Griffin wrote a book about laetrile (amygdalin) in World Without Cancer. It is one small facet of his BLP, yet it has taken center stage, WP:UNDUE. The book is based on scientific research (Memorial Sloan-Keterring, Dean Burk, etc.) that has been disputed by orthodox medicine, denied approval by FDA, and criticized by NCI, but that isn't what's at issue in this BLP. No one is proposing the removal of facts and opinions as long as the two are differentiated and reliably sourced. The problem is that we are being denied (reverted) the opportunity to expand and improve the article by including information relative to what Griffin wrote in his book - WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. Also see WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:FRINGE - Evaluating Claims wherein the following key statements apply (my bold): Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality – e.g. "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." – but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. The article is clearly a critical assessment of Griffin, therefore a coatrack, and at the very least, WP:NOTADVOCATE, in what appears to be a mission to root out quackery and condemn it to the fires of hell. Many of the sources cited are cherrypicked, and contain only trivial mention of quackery, none of which are directly related to Griffin, or his book. Others are simply unreliable, like Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology. A few are partisan (Media Matters for America), or include information that is 35 years old, some of which has since been questioned by current research and/or contradicted by actual clinical results. And that is the crux of the argument. Atsme☯ Consult 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn, saying that someone "promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment" is not "an inclusion of pseudoscientific views", any more than saying Obama is a Christian is an inclusion of Christian views. "The governing policies regarding fringe theories [guideline] are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability." If your interpretation of how neutrality applies to fringe, then it is correct for the Obama article. Griffin holds a fringe view on cancer treatment. Let's go to a source that does not mention him and explain what the scientific community thinks. Obama believes that a man once lived who was actually God, who raised the dead and cast out devils, lets add what scientists think about that. TFD ( talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the problem extends far beyond FRINGEBLP. Griffin does not belong on this noticeboard because amygdalin (laetrile or B17) is not pseudoscience as defined by WP:Fringe. Furthermore, the purpose of Griffin's book is "to marshall the evidence that cancer is a nutritional-deficiency disease." It also focuses on "areas of need for further research with vitamin B17." Griffin advocates a patient's freedom to choose treatment. Now then, read the following which establishes that laetrile (amygdalin, B17) is not pseudoscience according to guidelines:
That is not what we are seeing at Griffin. The BLP violations must be cleaned up per BLP policy. Maintaining Griffin as a WP:Coatrack is an embarrassment to the project. Perhaps it is time to take this dispute to the next level in order to get a fresh new set of neutral eyes looking at it. Atsme☯ Consult 19:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative"
"With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment." - Memorial Sloan Keterring Cancer Center
The problem with Griffin's BLP began when information that belongs in the article was reverted in what appears to be behavior representative of WP:OWN and WP:NOTADVOCATE. The "quackery" claims in the article are the result of SYNTH and POV. The latter combined with the exclusion of material I attempted to include not only creates a COATRACK, it takes on the appearance of being supported by those who oppose CAM, which may account for the pejorative claims of quackery and pseudoscience. Other problems include WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE which is part of the reason Griffin is being discussed here where it clearly doesn't belong. Some of the RS may very well be reliable but because of the way they are being used (synth) it doesn't matter. Some are simply not reliable at all which I've pointed out numerous times. What I find rather disconcerting is the level at which you WP:DONTGETIT, especially considering these issues are plaguing a BLP. Far too much weight has been placed on pseudoscience, especially considering Griffin authored one book about a natural compound (B17, or laetrile, or amygdalin), and you are now trying to make it an argument about orthodox medicine vs CAM. We have seriously strayed off-topic. With all due respect, I really don't care if the world-wide attention Griffin's books have garnered fly in the face of traditional medicine which, based on the death toll, doesn't appear to be the magic cure for cancer, either. The ongoing scientific research on amygdalin is REAL, and if it poses a threat to your advocacy, sorry - it's not my problem. My concerns are focused on whether or not the article is NPOV and compliant with WP policy. It is with much regret that I have to report it is not. Atsme☯ Consult 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Despite this whole debate having a very low level of importance in the BLP, it appears to be of high importance to a few editors who insist on making Griffin a topic of pseudoscience despite the contradictory description in WP:FRINGE. I consult you to please read the following research collection because it further substantiates my interpretation of WP policy and contradicts the outdated RS used at Griffin: [36]
Definition of complementary medicine adopted by Cochrane Collaboration - “Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a broad domain of healing resources that encompasses all health systems, modalities, and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the politically dominant health system of a particular society or culture in a given historical period. CAM includes all such practices and ideas self-defined by their users as preventing or treating illness or promoting health and well-being. Boundaries within CAM and between the CAM domain and that of the dominant system are not always sharp or fixed.”.
Full article is here: [37] Hardly what I consider quackery or pseudoscience. The antiquated claims in combination with outdated and/or poor sourcing on Griffin need to be updated so the article will be in compliance with BLP policy. I wish all of you a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! Enjoy time with your family, and may we all enjoy a happy and prosperous 2015!!! Atsme☯ Consult 18:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
More problems with removal of sourced content etc. Evidently at least one contributor doesn't agree with sourced scientific material refuting the fringe creationist/theological arguments presented there, and is under the impression that only one side of the argument belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 08:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Creation-evolution controversy#Public policy issues
Creation-evolution controversy#Freedom of speech
'Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution'
These two sources appear representative and reliable witnesses to the views of the community they represent, one corroborating the other. This has been contested. Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#RfC: Claims of discrimination against Darwin sceptics
Have been advised to ask here from Reliable_sources notice board, the links seem to comply with external links guide. Cpsoper ( talk) 20:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the other talk page, the specific edit in this case is "Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution." To be accurate, the statement would have to be "Dr Jerry Bergman, in his book Slaughter of the Dissidents, claims that there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution.". The source is a reliable source just not for the edit in question. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 23:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Creationists do indeed believe that they are victims of discrimination as a result of their dogmatic rejection of the scientific fact of evolution. We scarcely need more data points for this, especially if they risk giving the impression that this persecution complex is valid. We can probably find some flat earth believers who feel they are discriminated against in the field of geology, too. Guy ( Help!) 09:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In related news Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Bergman (2nd nomination). jps ( talk) 00:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Universal Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an Australian alt-med cult that has diligently scrubbed Google of unflattering content. And there's a LOT of unflattering content. The shills are now watching the article, so more eyes would be helpful. I think I may be the only non-SPA watching it! Guy ( Help!) 22:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks like we have a low intensity edit war going on between two opposing groups of SPAs in this article. I think both sides have agenda issues and I have been urging them to keep it NPOV, but I am not sanguine. One side seems to be intent on turning the article into something close to an indictment of the group (serious pseudoscience and quackery to be sure), while the other, mostly one SPA, is trying to play defense. I don't want to get BITEY with new editors, but I am worried that there is little chance for consensus and there is a lot of suspicion and ill-will starting to show up on the talk page. As of a few minutes ago I posted on the talk page basically asking for a 24hr cease fire while they go and read some of the applicable guidelines. Some additional oversight and possible intervention by other experienced editors would be appreciated. Thanks.
CC: GUY, Dougweller and Cullen328 - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Extraterrestrial hypothesis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I did (perhaps somewhat controversially) this. The entire passage, I thought, suffered from violation of WP:WEIGHT considerations. The entire article, however, may be unduly weighted since the idea is so far-fetched as to be only relevant as a conspiracy-theory jaunt. Help in recasting the article from a more serious and neutral outlook would be appreciated.
jps ( talk) 23:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
"A 2012 analysis of data on individual participants in acupuncture studies looked at migraine and tension headaches. The analysis showed that actual acupuncture was more effective than either no acupuncture or simulated acupuncture in reducing headache frequency or severity."[29] See Acupuncture#Headaches and migraines. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.
"A 2014 Australian clinical study involving 282 men and women showed that needle and laser acupuncture were modestly better at relieving knee pain from osteoarthritis than no treatment, but not better than simulated (sham) laser acupuncture."[30] See Acupuncture#Extremity conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.
"According to NCCAM, results of a systematic review that combined data from 11 clinical trials with more than 1,200 participants suggested that acupuncture (and acupuncture point stimulation) may help with certain symptoms associated with cancer treatments.[85]" See Acupuncture#Cancer-related conditions. We are currently using better sources including a Cochrane review in this section.
See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."
I think the key word is reputable, according to the wording of WP:MEDRS. For example, the reputations of NIMH and NCI are significantly different than that of NCCAM. Since it is not clear that NCCAM (see National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health#Criticism) is a reputable organisation I think we should leave the text out of the Acupuncture#Effectiveness section. If the question is WP:WEIGHT, the effectiveness section is bloated with a number of better sources.
See Talk:Acupuncture#Weight violation for the current discussion. While the discussion was still ongoing the tags were removed. Please comment on the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov.
Comments welcome.
jps ( talk) 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are a few uses of "alleged" or "allegedly" in Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. that might require additional opinions. - Location ( talk) 18:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Bilocation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is a stub and is fairly neutral, but it seems to avoid the obvious point that this kind of apparition violates several physical laws. How is it best to characterize this kind of magical claim without getting into the rather silly and pedantic rejoinder sentences such as "bilocation is impossible"?
jps ( talk) 22:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Saints and levitation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In the same vein as the above, this article is straightforward and rather neutral, but doesn't point out some of the obvious issues with these claims. I note, in a related bit, that our previously fraught yogic flying article has been scrubbed from Wikipedia with a redirect to TM.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Islam#For some sects.... There is a very small sect of Muslims known as Quranists that only take into account the words of the Quran. Other muslims (the vast majority) also believe in hadith, the reported sayings of and stories about Muhammad. The Quranists do not. Just as the lead to Christianity says "most" Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and the lead to Muhammad says that Muslims "almost universally" regard him as the last prophet [for info: the Ahmadiyya sect do not], I think the lead of Islam should say something like the "vast majority" of Muslims believe in the hadith. Other editors want to say effectively all Muslims believe in hadith, citing WP:FRINGE. I believe that is a misunderstanding of FRINGE which, in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories about a religion rather than fringe sects of that religion. Grateful for other inputs. DeCausa ( talk) 10:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Portage County UFO chase ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not too fond of what was done by Dr Fil ( talk · contribs) here:
My recommendation is a wholesale revert, but I'd appreciate some input from other editors before throwing my weight around further.
In fact, we should probably go through and look carefully at all this user's contributions to Wikipedia. He is a passionate UFO true believer.
jps ( talk) 23:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, then:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portage County UFO chase.
jps ( talk) 02:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In investigating the previous article, I ran across this extensive piece. Pascagoula Abduction ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Help!
jps ( talk) 07:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Considerably changed recently. I've removed one source was which on Beall's list of predatory journals, but take a look at this source. Evidently Talpade used mercury engines. Dougweller ( talk) 19:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we revert to the more appropriate version? -- Ghirla -трёп- 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the article does not clearly identify the supposed "syndrome" as pseudo-science. There is no warning for the readers to take care. The article seems to be based almost entirely on the works of fringe theorists. Is it ok? -- Ghirla -трёп- 09:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The article needs to be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Then rebuilt from good sources - if there are any. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackademic medicine. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
For anybody who missed it, note that in its wisdom Arbcom recently passed a motion in effect clarifying that discretionary sanctions apply to "any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine". Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Near-death studies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The proposal of this article is that "near-death studies" as promoted by IANDS is an academic discipline in the same way that, say, reincarnation research may have been so considered in the past. I think this is way oversold and rather unbalanced. In fact, I think that the claim that there is an academic "discipline" should be handled under the parapsychology umbrella in the same way we handled reincarnation research. Redirect to Near-death experience#Near-death studies might work well. Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Fringe, POV, and OR edits [44]. Dougweller ( talk) 19:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
See [45] Dougweller ( talk) 08:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#Should we create a new category for articles relating to Hyperdiffusionism in archaeology? Dougweller ( talk) 15:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Current text in the lede is: TCM is described as "largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies." [46] Some editors think it is inappropriate to suggest that Traditional Chinese medicine is pseudoscience. There was a previous DR. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine.
Hello everyone, there is an RFC that editors from this noticeboard may be interested in commenting on: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?. I added a quote instead of the previous text and I proposed on the talk page if the quote is still not satisfactory it can be rewritten. Thank you for your feedback. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Article and deletion discussion relevant to this noticeboard: Targeted Individual ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual (2nd nomination) Kolbasz ( talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone ever considered altering the above template in such a way as to allow it to not use the words "fringe theories" in the template as it appears, but rather the phrase "minority theories"? There is currently discussion about the definition of "fringe theories" here at Christ myth theory, where some individuals are advocating, I think not necessarily wholly unreasonably, that the "minority" theory that Jesus never existed might not qualify as a "fringe theory" the way that phrase is ordinarily used in everyday speech. Given the somewhat perjorative nature of the term fringe theory in a lot of circles, I can see potentially other instances in which the latter phrasing might be more reasonable than the former. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 21:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Lack of good sources and probably biased towards UFOlogy. Leave alone or nominate for deletion? Geogene ( talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Eyes may be needed on the Electronic harassment article - a contributor has been adding the same fringe-conspiracy-theory-promoting nonsense that was previously in the now-deleted Targeted Individual article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)